II. RESPONSE TO GEPA 417(a)
A. Goals and Objectives
Continuing objectives of this program in FY 1984 were to:
o Deliver student aid dollars to qualified recipients and maintain level of
o Encourage States to increase support of needy students.
o Insure the existence of State agencies concerned with the distribution of
grant aid to needy students and encourage private sector involvement to
provide additional sources of funds.
B. Progress and Accomplishments
o Federal SSIG allotment has been increased from $60 million in 1983 to
$76 million in 1984. With the exception of Puerto Rico, individual 1984
state allotments exceeded the 1983 level.
o Total State grant support, including overmatching of SSIG funds, increased
to $1,082,912,832 in 1983-84, of which the SSIG allotment represents 5.6
percent. In 12 states which did not have grant programs before SSIG,
state funds now provide more than a 50-50 match of the Federal allotment.
All states now participate in SSIG.
o SSIG staff have explored the establishment of Student Assistance Service
Centers to improve the delivery of aid to students in small institutions.
Cooperative programs with private industries have been developed..?/
C. Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness
Student Participation: In program year 1983-84, Federal funds of $60 million
matched 50-50 for a total of $120 million were distributed to approximately
240,000 recipients, with awards averaging $500. Over $1 billion in grants
were distributed by states in addition to their match of the Federal SSIG.
The average award for all State grants to first-time, full-time freshmen in
the 1983-84 academic years was $789 and 17 percent of these students received
State grants. (E.I)
Program Scope: In the 1982-83 academic year, public 4-year institutions
received 43 percent of Federal SSIG funds and accounted for 52 percent of all
recipients. Private 4-year institutions received 37 percent of Federal
SSIG funds but had only 24 percent of all recipients. Two-year and proprietary
institutions accounted for the remaining 20 percent of funds and 24 percent
of recipients. Data for the 1983-84 academic year have been delayed by a
change in the method of reporting. (E.2)llar with State